A new Lagrangian-based short-term prediction methodology for high-frequency (HF) radar currents

Solabarrieta, Lohitzune; Hernández-Carrasco, Ismael; Rubio, Anna; Campbell, Michael; Esnaola, Ganix; Mader, Julien; Jones, Burton H.; Orfila, Alejandro

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-755-2021

Articles | Volume 17, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-755-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Coastal marine infrastructure in support of monitoring, science,...

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-17-755-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 17, issue 3

Research article

|

04 Jun 2021

Research article |

| 04 Jun 2021

A new Lagrangian-based short-term prediction methodology for high-frequency (HF) radar currents

Lohitzune Solabarrieta, Ismael Hernández-Carrasco, Anna Rubio, Michael Campbell, Ganix Esnaola, Julien Mader, Burton H. Jones, and Alejandro Orfila

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 Jun 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 14 Feb 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Mar 2020
- AC1: 'Reply to your revision from the authors', Lohitzune Solabarrieta, 30 Jul 2020
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 May 2020
- AC2: 'Reply to your revision from the authors', Lohitzune Solabarrieta, 30 Jul 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Lohitzune Solabarrieta on behalf of the Authors (27 Aug 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Nov 2020) by Ingrid Puillat

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (11 Jan 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The new version of the paper by Solabarrieta et al. is overall satisfying but I am still unconvinced by the following concerns:

a) L250: why are values different from those at lines 221 and 225?
b) L282-284: still puzzled by the fact that the authors want to mention the Eulerian attempt. In order to show that the Lagrangian results are better than the Eulerian ones, as argued in their response, authors should clearly explain and provide details on how the analogue for the surface Eulerian velocity is found and at least report quantitative metrics for the comparison.
c) L330: As the method runs in a very short time it should not be a problem to explore its sensitivity to the number of virtual trajectories used. Looking at Figure 1, we still have plenty of gridpoints. what if we use 100 or 50 or less (like 12) virtual particles? How do results change?
d) L348: why is epsilon calculated as the sum of squared difference every 6h? do results change if difference are calculated at every hour?
e) L574: why is 0.39 meaningful? where is this value?
f) L670: where is shown that the cross point is at 714 km2?
g) Overall discussion: I must admit that this part remains poor. Still not able to grasp why HF radars are less able to resolve persistent feature wrt the PRS method. Why is the PRS method less affected if the persistent structures do no take place at the same positions as the authors are saying in their response? A clear reference to an example where both method are used for one of these structures is really needed. Authors are also not showing GDOP maps which could help the discussion and the interpretation of the results.
g) Figure 4: I must confess that I find this figure more confusing than inspiring. It is not really understandable, very wordy and it is not clear what the different lines are referring to.

Typos:
1) L73: correct infrastrUCture
2) L76: correct exiSting
3) L148: correct ITS
4) L240: remove one THE
5) L331: missing parenthesis
6) L400: here and throughout the manuscript, should not be 'TRUE' and not 'TRUTH' trajectories?
7) L489 and L494: slightly change nottion here as we delta_t you refer to two different errors
8) L530: correct LAST

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (20 Jan 2021) by Ingrid Puillat

AR by Lohitzune Solabarrieta on behalf of the Authors (07 Feb 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Feb 2021) by Ingrid Puillat

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (26 Feb 2021)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (02 Mar 2021) by Ingrid Puillat

AR by Lohitzune Solabarrieta on behalf of the Authors (12 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (29 Mar 2021) by Ingrid Puillat

AR by Lohitzune Solabarrieta on behalf of the Authors (07 Apr 2021) Manuscript

Short summary

High-frequency radar technology measures coastal ocean surface currents. The use of this technology is increasing as it provides near-real-time information that can be used in oil spill or search-and-rescue emergencies to forecast the trajectories of floating objects. In this work, an analog-based short-term prediction methodology is presented, and it provides surface current forecasts of up to 48 h. The primary advantage is that it is easily implemented in real time.